Details
With a cordial “welcome back”, outgoing US President Joe Biden received his predecessor and successor Donald Trump in the Oval Office just under a week after the 2024 presidential election. Throughout the election, the Democrats had vilified Trump, just as they had done in the eight years prior, as an enemy of democracy, a racist, and the gravedigger of the American dream. Yet shortly after the election, the party went back to business as usual.
Jörg Wimalasena is a freelance journalist in Berlin. He previously worked for Die Welt, taz, and as a US correspondent for Zeit Online.
Biden’s reaction epitomizes the current state of the Democratic Party. For them, politics is conducted like a business: once an election campaign is over, even yesterday’s demonized opponent can be welcomed back with open arms. After all, defeat, too, can be lucrative: both Biden and the Democrat’s unsuccessful presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, used the post-election period to market themselves for paid speaking engagements through a Hollywood agency. Harris toured the country with her self-congratulatory memoirs about running for the presidential office, monetizing her account of the crushing electoral defeat before audiences who in some cases had paid more than 100 dollars per ticket — while already hinting at another presidential bid.
In Congress, too, there was a noticeable lack of serious reckoning, let alone a change in leadership — despite the fact that this very same leadership had handed the presidency to a destructive populist billionaire on a silver platter twice in eight years. The party’s top figures in both chambers of Congress remained firmly in place.
The causes of the Democrats’ defeat are obvious. The Biden administration took few steps to curb the exorbitant rise in the cost of living, pursued wealth and resource redistribution projects only half-heartedly, if at all, and never managed to free itself from the grips of wealthy donors who routinely block more ambitious political projects. Throughout the party’s campaign, Kamala Harris appeared more frequently alongside billionaire Mark Cuban and Republican Liz Cheney than with Bernie Sanders, the party’s most popular left-wing figure. Even though polling indicated that a left-wing populist economic agenda would be more likely to win swing states like Pennsylvania, Harris chose to abandon any such related proposals, such as curbing corporate price gouging. She also failed to guarantee the continued tenure of Lina Khan, head of the antitrust authority and the only senior figure in the Biden administration to confront corporate pricing power head-on (not least in the healthcare sector) — almost certainly because major donors had openly demanded Khan’s removal.
The outcome is well known. Kamala Harris failed to mobilize new constituencies and lost every decisive swing state. Even in Democratic strongholds such as liberal New York City, Trump made gains. For the first time, he won the popular vote — that is, the largest number of votes nationwide, which, owing to the complexity of the US electoral system, does not necessarily determine the outcome, as was demonstrated by the 2016 presidential election.
Spineless Opposition
With both Harris and the ageing Joe Biden gone, the Democrats have been operating largely without clear leadership. The party’s most prominent figures are now Hakeem Jeffries, minority leader in the House of Representatives, and his counterpart in the Senate, Chuck Schumer. Neither of them are especially charismatic, and their engagement in opposition is as unambitious as the Democrats’ last election campaign. Only Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and a handful of allies continue to tirelessly travel the country to lend their support to strike movements and mobilize resistance to Trump’s austerity agenda in key constituencies.
The budget negotiations would have offered Schumer and his ilk an opportunity to boost their image. Republicans were unwilling to extend federal subsidies for private health insurance — a move that would have sharply increased healthcare costs for millions of people. Senate Democrats initially blocked the measure to discontinue these subsidies, but after a six-week government shutdown, eight Democrats ultimately broke ranks and allowed it to pass. Either Chuck Schumer — despite his 26 years in Congress — lacks control over his caucus, or, perhaps more plausibly, there was a tacit agreement over who would violate the party line in order to avoid a direct, uncomfortable confrontation. Not incidentally, none of the eight senators who sided with the Republicans are due to stand for re-election in 2026.
It is not out of the question that the meagre opposition offered by the Democrats is guided by some modicum of political strategy.
Democrats in the House of Representatives have likewise been spineless. Journalist Alex Skopic lists several examples that depict Hakeem Jeffries’s oppositional stance as amounting to a mere “shrug”. When individual Democratic lawmakers campaigned for the return of an immigrant who had been wrongfully deported to El Salvador, Jeffries shut the initiative down — despite widespread public outrage at the actions undertaken by ICE, the body responsible for enforcing immigration law and carrying out deportations. He opposed calls to initiate impeachment proceedings against Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, who had ordered air strikes against boats alleged to be involved in drug trafficking in the Caribbean and even authorized forces to fire on survivors. He also sabotaged a resolution supporting the right of federal employees to unionize.
Jeffries is especially determined when it comes to shutting down left-wing voices within his own party. He voted in favour of a Republican motion condemning the “horrors of socialism”, even though, according to one Gallup poll, two thirds of Democrats and 38 percent of independent voters view socialism positively, and in spite of the recent election of democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York City. Jeffries (himself a New Yorker) publicly endorsed Mamdani only reluctantly and at the very last minute. More broadly, he continues to endeavour to prevent the rise of left-wing candidates in his home city who might pose a threat to the party establishment.
Foreign Policy Debacle
When it comes to foreign policy, the opposition offers just as little resistance. Many Democratic senators voted to confirm Trump’s cabinet nominees; Republican foreign-policy hardliner Marco Rubio was even approved unanimously. For all their partisan differences, the two parties remain united on interventionist power politics. Schumer did not even distance himself from Washington’s regime-change plans in Venezuela. When Donald Trump ordered strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June, leading Democrats objected not to the attack itself but to the fact that they had not been informed in advance. The problem, in other words, was procedural, not political.
It is therefore unsurprising that Democrats have still not backed down in their long-standing support for Israel’s military campaign. In March, Chuck Schumer told a New York Times columnist that his primary task was to keep the left “pro-Israel” — an effort that is clearly failing. According to a YouGov poll conducted in October, 72 percent of Democrats planning to vote in the upcoming primaries believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, and nearly two thirds support sanctions. Nonetheless, Schumer continues to offer PR advice to Benjamin Netanyahu, and leading Democrats receive the Israeli prime minister despite an outstanding warrant for his arrest issued by the International Criminal Court. The bipartisan pro-Israel consensus is sacrosanct for the political establishment — regardless of public opinion.
Nor is there any sign of a shift in social or economic policy. Within the media bubble that surrounds the party elites, debate revolves not around a social-democratic or socialist turn, but around a supply-side “abundance” agenda associated with journalists Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson. Its central claim is that the US’s distributional crises stem not from grotesque wealth inequality or the economic disenfranchisement of the working population, but from excessive state regulation — particularly in housing policy. At the same time, the party is debating whether the Dems should start their own podcast, given that right-wing podcasters are said to have played a decisive role in ushering Trump to his most recent victory. Deregulation and podcasts are presented as the road to political transformation. At anti-Trump demonstrations such as the “No Kings” rallies, Democrats play only a marginal role. Grassroots activism holds little appeal for the party leadership, since activists’ demands often collide with the “business as usual” strategy pursued by the congressional incumbents.
It is not out of the question that the meagre opposition offered by the Democrats is guided by some modicum of political strategy. In February, influential political consultant James Carville advised Democrats to “roll over and play dead” — that is, to allow Trump free rein until the economy teeters on the brink of collapse, at which point they could re-emerge as the nation’s saviours. No Democratic leader has publicly endorsed this strategy, but the party’s timid opposition efforts nonetheless echo Carville’s recommendation.
Mamdani and Left-Wing Opposition
But a counter-movement does indeed exist. After being sidelined for years following Bernie Sanders’s primary defeats to Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, the political Left is now staging a comeback. Zohran Mamdani is the key figure behind this resurgence. The state assemblyman, who is supported by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), was elected mayor of New York City in November, overcoming considerable resistance from the city’s political establishment. In short, Mamdani is doing almost everything right that the Democrats have been doing wrong for years. Mamdani is unfaltering in his criticism of capitalism and, during his election campaign, chose not to focus on public media showdowns with Donald Trump, instead concentrating solely on the cost of living.
New York is among the most expensive cities in the world and has become virtually unaffordable for ordinary citizens, and even those in the upper middle class. Mamdani has called for free buses, a rent freeze on city-regulated housing, a higher minimum wage, and state-run supermarkets. His opponents tried to prevent his election by waging counter-campaigns that cost millions — mainly because, unlike the Democrats in Congress, Mamdani never concealed his pro-Palestinian stance, and because his plans to raise taxes on the super-rich unsurprisingly met with resistance. Nevertheless, Mamdani won by a clear margin.
His political style could perhaps be described as a kind of technocratic populism. Instead of talking about ideology, he prefers to talk about how government intervention can improve people’s lives. It is fitting, then, that Lina Khan should occupy a prominent position in his shadow cabinet. Known for her meticulous approach, the lawyer is tasked with identifying legal measures that could help the new city administration strengthen consumer protections and reduce living costs for ordinary people. According to one media report, she plans to take action against hospitals that administer overpriced drugs to patients even when cheaper generic drugs are available. These are modest, pragmatic steps that will improve people’s lives and counter the libertarian ideology that opposes “big government”, and that has shaped the United States since the Reagan era.
While many voters appear ready for a shift to the left, the Democratic Party as a whole is not.
More generally, there is renewed activity across the left wing of the political spectrum. Inspired by Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaigns and Mamdani’s victory in New York, more and more grassroots left-wing candidates are entering the race for public office — even in areas outside major cities. In Maine, for example, oyster farmer and military veteran Graham Platner is running for the Democratic nomination for the 2026 Senate race on Bernie’s long-standing platform of universal health insurance (“Medicare for all”). His primary opponent is the state’s unpopular incumbent governor Janet Mills, who is supported by Chuck Schumer. In most polls, Platner currently holds the lead.
Polls also show that voters are fed up with the old establishment, with even moderate Democrats growing increasingly critical. Following the recent government shutdown, calls for Chuck Schumer to resign emerged from the House of Representatives. This kind of open challenge to party leadership is unusual and shows that, after suffering two defeats to Donald Trump, the Democratic establishment is no longer as secure as it was in 2016 and 2020. Some candidates and members of Congress have also pledged to stop accepting money from the pro-Israel lobby organization AIPAC. And particularly in the House of Representatives, the number of left-wing representatives could rise after the 2026 midterm elections.
All Questions Remain Unresolved
Despite all of this, it is unlikely that we will see a political revolution. While many voters appear ready for a shift to the left, the Democratic Party as a whole is not. Even with new progressive candidates, both chambers of Congress remain firmly controlled by the party establishment. And even if Schumer and Jeffries were to step down, the current balance of power makes it improbable that they would be replaced by progressives. With regard to the upcoming presidential election, it also seems unlikely that the left-wing faction of the Democratic party will produce the party’s candidate. Zohran Mamdani was born in Uganda and is therefore ineligible to run. Although Bernie Sanders is positioning Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as his successor, her candidacy would likely be premature at this point in time. The only vaguely progressive representative considering a run is Ro Khanna from California, but polls do not rate him very highly, and he lacks Mamdani’s charisma.
Most polls tend to feature three names in varying order: Kamala Harris, who performed so poorly in 2020 that she dropped out of the primaries before the first votes were even cast and who went on to lose decisively to Trump in 2024; Pete Buttigieg, former McKinsey consultant and one of the darlings of the establishment and big donors; and Gavin Newsom, the pliable governor of California, who has largely relied on aggressive social-media attacks on Trump to raise his profile, while offering little in terms of political substance. Beyond this trio, there are a handful of lesser-known figures who likewise do not advocate the kind of political shift that the current moment calls for.
It is even possible that one of them could defeat the Republicans. But this would not solve the party’s deeper problems, nor the broader precarious social situation in the US. The debate about a new party orientation would probably be postponed once again — just as it was in 2020 after Joe Biden’s election victory. And we all know where that will get us.
Translated by Hunter Bolin and Louise Pain for Gegensatz Translation Collective.
